CIVIL WAR: Senate To Go For Handguns

Actually free arms isn't that far-fetched. If Congress calls forth the militia, they are required to provide arms.

Article 1, Section 8

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

They are required to arm the military and they would be required to provide the militia with WEAPONS OF WAR, but not necessarily their own personal
firearms. The SCOTUS covers this. The First and Second Militia Act stated that every able-bodied man would present himself with his own arms and
ammunition and the government would then provide such things as cannons, etc.

For officers (who were expected to come from more affluent families) they were even expected to present with arms, ammunition and HORSES.

So, the Congress does not HAVE TO provide personal firearms to an ad hoc MILITIA. Hence the prefacing clause of the Second Amendment.

A well-regulated militia being necessary....[p.s. and we'll have that by protecting each citizen's right to keep and bear arms].

That's the way two separate courts (one being SCOTUS) says to read the Second Amendment.

Ah, but that is my point. The militia, if not able to own their own arms by prohibitive legislation, isn't going to stand up to a any sort of
insurrection (let alone foreign invasion) with single shot breech loading rifles and shotguns. Modern military tactics do not hold to the standards of
one shot, one kill that this bill would foster onto a militia. Those tactics were abandoned permanently in the Vietnam Era for the common fighter and
are only left for the roles of snipers, which is not the suppressive force that a militia would be asked to perform in an emergency.

Restricting firearms to lever action and bolt action rifles, with a maximum of 10 rounds if they have a detachable magazine, only .22LR and lower
calibers have feed tubes that hold more than 10 rounds, does not allow for suppressive fire. Note--the Marlin Model 60 is a semi-auto tube fed .22LR
that holds 14 rounds and is likely exempt from this ban due to being a .22LR.

Yep, I'm with you. That's why the SCOTUS ruling in Heller is pivotal and quite frankly Feinstein is guilty of treasonous acts and at least guilty of
not upholding and defending the Constitution.

Here's what the SCOTUS stated about a dissenting opinion during their ruling:

JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating
Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny,
rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interestbalancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way
or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.” Post, at 10. After an
exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence
is a problem,because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false
proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The
very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis
whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no
constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether
or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the
prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The
First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified,which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of
state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is
the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future
evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding,responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and
home.

Also, they state:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second
Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v.
American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States,
533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in
existence at the time of the founding.

And then, key to your point, they state this:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second
Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed
at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated
arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our
interpretation of the right.

Coming in here and seeing people with machine guns in their avatars defending the 2nd amendment makes me sick to my stomach.

You DON'T need an automatic/semi-automatic weapon for protection. A shotgun with limited rounds (similar to what Australia allows) is enough to
protect yourselves. Anything else just provides the mentally ill the resources to go on yet again, another mass shooting spree.

edit on
29-12-2012 by ftman because: (no reason given)

Yeah, I remember when you guys down under caved and handed in your guns. My father sat down and watched the pile-up of all your self-defense weapons
that was broadcast on TV and he cried.

Listen. I'm okay with you defending yourself with a shotgun. But you don't live here, so I don't particularly care what your opinion of what I need
is, okay? Even the appellate courts of the United States, in their decisions, have stated that the Second Amendment right is the U.S. citizen's last
defense against a tyrannical government.

The current tyrannical government we're facing has an internal army in place on our own home soil. Ruger's 9 mm semi-automatic production has been
OUT OF CIRCULATION to public purchase since April 2011 because the Department of Homeland Security (that internal army amongst us) contracted all the
production.

Don't tell me that my last line of defense against a growing threat against my freedoms, who are armed with semi-automatic weapons, is a three-shot
pump-action shotgun.

In short...you don't have a say. You can have an opinion, but you don't have a say.

Oh wow! A conversation America has been needing to have for a long time now, i.e. gun control, is grounds to imply civil war? Really?

I will not spout out of the expected liberal talking heads points about gun control because I am not a liberal; I am a Marxist if nothing else.

If anyone wants to start a civil war against the US Federal government, given the current material conditions, you will be crushed by a military which
would make you crap your pants. The US military is the most power, not to mention, most advanced military force in the world. You will to have a
serious mean streak in you, as well as, some massive funding backing you up to even think about seriously going up against the US military. Only two
nation have been able to hand the US military`s butt to them on a silver platter; DPRK and Vietnam. Those two nations could only to that because they
really were fighting for their very lives. The fight was brought to them against their will. When America is occupied by the US military, a puppet
government installed and your mother is raped daily by the US military, I am sure you will muster the stomach to fight a civil war to the bitter end;
and most likely win. So, until all of that happens don`t imply civil war over a long over due cultural conversation about gun control.

I think it is completely reasonable to have a serious talk about what firearms people really need in the United States. I do believe that there are
some guns which most people really have no use for in daily life other than to kill a bunch of people really quickly. For example, there is a very
good reason why the TAC-9 is not sold nor produced anymore.

I totally understand why people are worried about gun control. I have my doubts sometimes as well. Yet, 2012 has seen some of the worst mass killings
I have seen in America for a long time. I don`t have a solid answer for the issue of gun control in America at the time of writing this post. But
something has got to change. Be it the laws or society.

And I opt for society. If we'll start making the half of this country who currently think they have no obligations in society start taking care of
themselves and their children and force some changes in sentencing against violent criminals this crap will go way down.

We don't need as many police officers.
We don't need as many lawyers.
We don't need as many judges.
We don't need as many prisons.
We don't need as many taxes to pay for the above.
So we certainly don't need as many politicians nor as many laws.

Maybe the goal has little to do with guns and more to do with destroying more jobs, this administration is good at that.

I have done some more reading and rather than go with hyperbole and what ifs of a financially collapsed government or looters, etc. and let me place
this one stark fact about all mass shootings, of which this ban is being trotted out and will only have any legs if voted on in a knee-jerk
reaction:

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every
public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to
carry guns.”

If this ban is put in place and made Federal Law, the US effectively becomes a quasi gun free zone of limited response to those that have accessed a
now illegal gun. Any response is limited to law enforcement and those who might carry J frame sized revolvers (which require closer ranges) at the
risk exposing that concealed revolver and charged with "inciting panic" if someone sees the bulge.

edit on 29-12-2012 by Ahabstar because: a little punctuation never hurts

The police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual [citizen] appellants.

They went further to state

The duty [of law enforcement is] to provide public services [and] is owed to the public at large, and absent a special relationship between the
police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists [to protect any given individual citizen].

They upheld a lower court's ruling stating that

...the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection,
to any particular individual citizen...

The police are there to protect and serve the public AT LARGE. They can only perform those functions within the restrictive envelope
of...investigating a crime that HAS ALREADY HAPPENED (or is happening) and attempting to bring the perpetrator to justice (and out of society) OR by
investigating a probable criminal activity they get wind of. But if your home is being invaded, if you are in fear of imminent danger, and the police
don't even bother responding to your call for assistance....you have no recourse, as established by precedent, because they are not obligated to
protect you.

U.S. Citizens need to be straight that their personal protection and their family's protection is in THEIR hands and they are ON THEIR OWN.

edit on 12-29-2012 by Valhall because: Had linked to wrong case. Fixed link.

So if the US government passed a law that said it was illegal to own a firearm, with a mandatory penalty of say...no less than 5 years in prison, you
think many people would hold on to their guns? I don't.

you don't seem to understand what a violation of the second amendment means to americans. you've already been deprived of your guns AND made to
think it was a good idea! there is a reason americans are so well armed (despite the best efforts).

firstly, we don't have the jail space. secondly, anyone coming for guns will meet a swift end.

if this bill passes, it will undoubtedly bring civil war, and many, many soldiers will be on the side of the people.

I think a few of you are not understanding the proposed ban that is being circulated now.....at this point they are NOT going to confiscate weapons, I
am sure that will be something down the road they will do (hence the registration aspect of the new bill: so they know where all the guns are)

The first thing Hitler did when he came to power was make everyone who was not a brown shirt supporter turn in their guns....no armed citizens no
resistance. With this Gov right now they know they cannot come out and take all the guns so they will go after them bit by bit, like chipping away
at a giant rock knowing that by the time the sheep realize what is going on it will be too late and the rock will be destroyed and gone.

Do the math there is much more going on here than meets the eye....with over 300 million guns in America and I am sure you can ad close to another 50
million with all the hysteria and panic buying of lately. So how the HELL are they going to register or permit 350 million guns....THEY CANT!
they cant even get aid delivered to NY with the whole country behind them and wanting it. Do you know the infrastructure needed and the amount of
time it will take to do this....they will have to factor in 5-7 years grace period for people to do it. It is not feasible.....so there is
more to this than meets the eyes and I do not think Congress will pass this bill, so even if the Senate passes it which I think they will Congress
wont so it will be a non issue. So that Means Obama will do some form of executive order and perhaps go after ammo or something else.

But Congress will not pass this bill so it is either and executive order or worse..........and yes History repeats itself so those who are saying a
possible civil war may not be too far off....many states like Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho etc will not go along with this type of Ban or Executive
order and have already stated it. But think about it if I am correct and Congress does not pass this in the house they will have no choice
but to do an executive order, Martial Law etc or just go after AMMO which I always thought they would go after that already.

The bottom line is something is going to happen one way or the other, if something gets put through or rammed down our throats by executive order or
other means you will have Civil unrest. It may start slow but as things progress people will not just sit back and take it(well some people will)
This is a game changer the only thing still unknown is what and to what extent gets changed.....all those price gouging now may get a rude
awakening if they make it that you cant sell anything and must keep what you have(for now) you will see prices plummet as they rush to dump what they
dont want to keep or are afraid to keep.
Things are going to be very interesting to say the least

I think a few of you are not understanding the proposed ban that is being circulated now.....at this point they are NOT going to confiscate weapons, I
am sure that will be something down the road they will do (hence the registration aspect of the new bill: so they know where all the guns are)

The 'grandfathered' weapons can NOT be transferred, so they are in effect 'confiscated' already. When the owner dies, the guns are
confiscated.
Best part for you gun grabber proponents, we won't be able to legally own, buy or make any new ones.

You are correct that they currently don't claim they will come get the guns. However, for the guns to be "legal" you must register each one with
the national government ($200/gun), supply your id and your fingerprints.

Aint happening. So, in effect, the moment you DON'T acquiesce to these Orwellian measures, your guns are up for confiscation because they are
illegal. AND you are instantly a criminal because you possess illegal guns.

And as pointed out by the other member, they basically are confiscating by proxy because you can't resale the gun and you can't even pass your own
personal property to your heirs. The government will take them upon your death.

Originally posted by freedomwv
Oh wow! A conversation America has been needing to have for a long time now, i.e. gun control, is grounds to imply civil war? Really?

I will not spout out of the expected liberal talking heads points about gun control because I am not a liberal; I am a Marxist if nothing else.

If anyone wants to start a civil war against the US Federal government, given the current material conditions, you will be crushed by a military which
would make you crap your pants. The US military is the most power, not to mention, most advanced military force in the world. You will to have a
serious mean streak in you, as well as, some massive funding backing you up to even think about seriously going up against the US military. Only two
nation have been able to hand the US military`s butt to them on a silver platter; DPRK and Vietnam. Those two nations could only to that because they
really were fighting for their very lives. The fight was brought to them against their will. When America is occupied by the US military, a puppet
government installed and your mother is raped daily by the US military, I am sure you will muster the stomach to fight a civil war to the bitter end;
and most likely win. So, until all of that happens don`t imply civil war over a long over due cultural conversation about gun control.

I think it is completely reasonable to have a serious talk about what firearms people really need in the United States. I do believe that there are
some guns which most people really have no use for in daily life other than to kill a bunch of people really quickly. For example, there is a very
good reason why the TAC-9 is not sold nor produced anymore.

I totally understand why people are worried about gun control. I have my doubts sometimes as well. Yet, 2012 has seen some of the worst mass killings
I have seen in America for a long time. I don`t have a solid answer for the issue of gun control in America at the time of writing this post. But
something has got to change. Be it the laws or society.

I guess the next obvious question is:

- how will the military effect an attack on the hive that is The People? Yes, we are outgunned. But they are outnumbered. Ask any animal to fall
victim to fire ants about that.

- how will the military continue to fund their side of a civil war when their tools of war are so much more expensive than ours?

If you want to know what needs to change, it is mental health care. Not guns. Lets get better treatment for those in need instead of continuing to
ignore them while stripping the rights of all sane individuals.

Valhall Correct it is confiscation by Proxy and virtually NO ONE See's this coming

In one swoop they are going to try to remove guns from the public within say 20 years or less....and most have not even figured out that if you get
arrested for ANYTHING even a misdemeanor you can lose your guns. So once they know you have them and how many they are as good as gone.
But like I said even if this got passed the way it is, it would take them YEARS and years to register/permit every gun out there with over 300 million
out there. So that begs the question what are they really planing behind the scenes....I say AMMO A
gun without a clip or or ammo is a paper weight, now with 100 and 100's of millions of clips out there and no serial numbers on them how can they
track them...they cant
BUT AMMO they CAN and I think will, I am serious this bill will NOT pass the congress, so that leaves Obama to pull and executive order and that to me
means go after ammo, no one will be able to even practice for fear of running out of ammo.
Hence in one swoop you take away guns and worse the ability to use/practice with them and they can say....hey we did NOT take your guns

In fact, I will add, it's the worst kind of confiscation. It's chicken-# confiscation. They want to confiscate without having the messy problem of
getting their asses handed to them when they actually try to take our guns. If you can't transfer your property, you can't sale your property, you
can't gift your property, and you can't will your property then it's not your property any more. It's somebody else's that you're providing free
storage to.

Which means yet another part of the foundational restrictions against the government enumerated in our founding documents will be violated because as
I recall the U.S. government can't use my property to quarter their troops or materiels without my express consent.

I'm down as not consenting to quartering their arms. So there you have it.

Well put and correct but for some reason I still think or should I say for right now(the next year or so) this wont come to pass as congress wont
pass this bill. Which makes me wonder what it is the POTUS will do too get some form of gun control.
I am wondering if he can by executive order order no transfer or sales of ANY firearms etc and then figure it will take 2 years to even get through
the SCOTUS Something is going to happen but I am just wondering if it will be worse with the POTUS doing it than what this bill is now.
Perhaps they know and are counting on Congress not passing the bill and already have something ready to go.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.